HostSWARMS vs CCV — price, size and safety, side by side
SWARMS (Solana) vs CCV (Base) — every figure is the freshest dated measurement we hold for that token, never a live-feed guess. Prices stamped 2026-09-17 / 2026-09-17T23:42:29.
SWARMS vs CCV — normalized performance, 2026-09-08 to 2026-09-17T23:42:29
| SWARMS | CCV | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $0.007094 | $2.01K |
| Market cap | $6.65M | — |
| 24h volume | $108.24K | $2.74B |
| Liquidity | $658.90K | $1.69B |
| FDV | $6.65M | — |
| Holders | 28,913 | — |
| Age (days) | — | 1 |
| Safety grade | A | B |
Where they differ
- CCV measures ~2,571× the liquidity of SWARMS
- CCV measures ~25,326× the 24h volume of SWARMS
- over the shared window SWARMS moved −5.02% while CCV moved 0.00%
What the data says
SWARMS
SWARMS is a Solana AI-agent token — themed on multi-agent frameworks, one of the larger survivors of the agent-token wave. The mint 74SBV4zDXxTRgv1pEMoECskKBkZHc2yGPnc7GYVepump is what our scan tracks: $6.6 million market cap, $659 thousand of liquidity and 28,913 holders as of September 16, 2026 — a genuinely deep pool and a very wide holder base for this cap.
The honest caution is the category's: agent-framework tokens are narrative instruments first — the holders are real, the market is real, and the technology they gesture at is real somewhere, but the value linkage between an open framework and its token is loose at best. What the figures do support is that this market is functional, which the long tail of agent tokens cannot claim.
CCV
Cucuvo belongs to a genre, and the genre is the story. Base's low fees make it one of the cheapest places in crypto to launch a token, and each week produces a wave of day-old tickers whose listing-feed numbers are tuned to catch screener sorts. CCV entered HostDeFi's records on August 19, 2026 — roughly one day after it began existing — carrying the wave's characteristic costume: about $1.69 billion in claimed liquidity and $2.74 billion in claimed daily volume, wrapped around a recorded market cap of zero and no holder count at all. Real markets earn numbers like those over years and show millions of holders doing it; this profile shows the numbers and nothing that would produce them.
The claimed figures come from venue feeds, and venue feeds report what pools tell them — including pools whose "volume" is an operator trading with themselves and whose "reserves" are valued against a price the same operator sets. Our capture graded the market shape those feeds described, which is why the grade on this page should be read as a grade of the costume, not the token. The contract at 0xedb2bbe57fe65de82039bed17d47d22c083e5609 — its mint powers, owner functions, and whether a buyer can actually sell — was not assessed in this snapshot.
FAQ
Which is bigger, SWARMS or CCV?
By tracked market cap: SWARMS (Solana) measures $6.65M and CCV (Base) measures — — dated snapshots, not a live feed.
Which is safer, SWARMS or CCV?
On the contract checks we publish: SWARMS (Solana) grades A and CCV (Base) grades B. A grade is a structural check on the contract, not a promise about the asset.
How have SWARMS and CCV performed over the shared window?
Between 2026-09-08 and 2026-09-17T23:42:29, the measured snapshots show SWARMS at −5.02% and CCV at 0.00%.
More comparisons
SWARMS vs RYYSWARMS vs FKBSWARMS vs CRDSWARMS vs RDKCCV vs RYYCCV vs FKBCCV vs CRDCCV vs RDK
The grade column is the one CMC's compare page cannot print — our grade is computed from the contract itself (mint/freeze authority, liquidity, holder concentration). Changes are measured over the shared window stated on the chart, 2026-09-08→2026-09-17T23:42:29; a token with fewer measured points measures a shorter span inside it.
Figures are dated on-chain snapshots, not a live feed. Safety grades are structural checks — not investment advice. Free · no signup · a HostDeFi product.